On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 01:49:16PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 01:42:22PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 02:25:06PM +0530, Aravind Iddamsetty wrote: > > > > > > On 23/04/24 02:24, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 12:27:53PM +0530, Aravind Iddamsetty wrote: > > > >> In scenarios where drm_dev_put is directly called by driver we want to > > > >> release devm_drm_dev_init_release action associated with struct > > > >> drm_device. > > > >> > > > >> v2: Directly expose the original function, instead of introducing a > > > >> helper (Rodrigo) > > > >> > > > >> v3: add kernel-doc (Maxime Ripard) > > > >> > > > >> Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> Cc: Thomas Hellstr_m <thomas.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > > >> > > > > please avoid these empty lines here.... cc, rv-b, sign-offs, links, > > > > etc are all in the same block. > > > ok. > > > > > > > >> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Aravind Iddamsetty <aravind.iddamsetty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> --- > > > >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > > > >> include/drm/drm_drv.h | 2 ++ > > > >> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+) > > > >> > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c > > > >> index 243cacb3575c..9d0409165f1e 100644 > > > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c > > > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c > > > >> @@ -714,6 +714,19 @@ static int devm_drm_dev_init(struct device *parent, > > > >> devm_drm_dev_init_release, dev); > > > >> } > > > >> > > > >> +/** > > > >> + * devm_drm_dev_release_action - Call the final release action of the device > > > > Seeing the doc here gave me a second thought.... > > > > > > > > the original release should be renamed to _devm_drm_dev_release > > > > and this should be called devm_drm_dev_release without the 'action' word. > > > i believe, was suggested earlier to directly expose the main function, is > > > there any reason to have a __ version ? > > > > No no, just ignore me. Just remove the '_action' and don't change the other. > > > > I don't like exposing the a function with '__'. what would '__' that mean? > > This is what I meant on the first comment. > > > > Now, I believe that we don't need the '_action'. What does the 'action' mean? > > > > the devm_drm_dev_release should be enough. But then I got confused and > > I thought it would conflict with the original released function name. > > But I misread it. > > I don't think devm_drm_dev_release is a good name either. Just like any > other devm_* function that cancels what a previous one has been doing > (devm_kfree, devm_backlight_device_unregister, devm_nvmem_device_put, > etc.) it should be called devm_drm_dev_put or something similar. I see what you mean, but I don't believe the 'put' is the best option, for 2 reasons: - in general, we have put paired with gets and this has not get equivalent - this bypass the regular get/put mechanism and forces the releases that would be done only after all drm_dev_put() taking ref to zero. > > Maxime
